SNUD Committee Report

Supplementary Report
Libby Davies MP Vancouver East
Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs

The NDP participated fully in the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. Substance misuse in our society imports substantial social, economic and health costs for Canadians. The work of the Committee provided an important opportunity to examine substance misuse, and to hear from Canadians who are affected by this issue. The Committee members collaborated with each other and were respectful of divergent opinions. It is significant that many areas of agreement were found, and in this respect I wish to thank other members who worked so hard to achieve consensus on many issues.

The NDP supports many of the Committee’s recommendations concerning education, prevention, treatment, harm-reduction and public safety. The NDP strongly supports the recommendations on the appointment of a Canadian Drug Commissioner with full powers to monitor, investigate and audit Canada’s Drug Strategy. However, the appointment of such a Commissioner must reflect the philosophy that drug misuse is primarily a health issue, not an enforcement issue.

The NDP’s main points of departure flow from the failure of the report to deal adequately with the fundamental harms caused by Canada’s drug laws and federal government inaction. The lack of leadership by the federal government has had devastating health consequences in communities that are facing this crisis. Leadership on this issue has come from local communities as evidenced by the recent Vancouver municipal election. The federal government and Health Canada have been slow to act in responding to this health crisis. With so many lives lost it is shameful that it has taken so long for any substantive changes to take place as recommended by numerous experts.

The NDP generally supports recommendations 1 to 27 dealing with the mandate, role and priority for Canada’s Drug Strategy, as well as recommendations concerning the need for accessible treatment from low threshold to long term recovery and support care and services. The NDP also believes strongly that clinical heroin trials and the establishment of safe consumption sites (recommendations 20 and 23) are urgently needed. In this regard Health Canada must act quickly to stop the needless waste of human life and social destruction in communities like the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver. The response needed must include both economic and legislative support for such consumption sites.

Focus on enforcement: The 2001 Auditor General’s report on Illicit Drugs sharply focused on the weakness, lack of accountability and failed implementation of Canada’s Drug Strategy. The primary focus of that strategy in practice has been on enforcement —  the use of what are essentially criminal law powers to deal with drugs. This focus on interdiction (“supply reduction”) has drawn resources away from other measures that could be far more effective in reducing substance misuse and its related harms.

The emphasis on criminal prosecution for behaviour linked to illicit drug use has not decreased use nor effectively dealt with serious health and safety issues. In fact, there is substantial expert evidence that prohibitionist policies and criminalization of drug users increases the harms associated with drugs. Drugs lack quality controls, education may be skewed because of the illegal status of drugs, and the expense of buying drugs on the illegal market may encourage users to take drugs in a manner that increases health risks. This greatly increases the risk of harm from disease and overdose. The report fails to distinguish harms that may flow from the pharmacology of the drug from harms that may flow from the policies, such as prohibition and inadequate education.

Drug education: The report acknowledges the need for drug education, but it downplays or misses two fundamental points. First, if drug misuse is a public health issue, why do the police deliver drug education programs? The police are qualified to discuss the law concerning illegal and legal drugs, but they are not pharmacologists or public health officials. There is substantial evidence that current drug education programs conducted by the police are ineffective.

Even if these flaws in current drug education programs did not exist, the police are constrained in the type of education they can give. Their job is to enforce the law. Some police may object to providing education on safe use practices, since they may view that as contradicting their role in enforcing the law against users. Yet by failing to provide education about how to use as safely as possible we abandon the many millions of Canadians who at some point use illegal drugs. While it is essential to discourage Canadians from harmful drug use, it is equally important to minimize the dangers for those who do, by giving honest, factual and non-judgmental education. Such education can save lives and protect the health of both users and the communities around them. There is a critical need for heath-based, realistic education and prevention, targeted to key groups who are at risk, such as youth, that promotes safety, health and well-being of individuals and the community as a whole.

The ineffectiveness of law enforcement: Law enforcement efforts have almost completely failed to stop the flow of illicit drugs into Canada. A Canada Customs and Revenue Agency witness who appeared before the committee in October 2001 suggested that Canada stops only about 10% of the drugs destined for our country. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are also produced domestically. Yet the overwhelming share of federal funds directed at drug issues in Canada go to law enforcement, according to the Auditor General. Even if law enforcement were able to greatly increase the percentage of drugs it seizes — say, to 50% of those entering Canada or produced in this country — it would come nowhere near to solving the problem. Drug prices would almost certainly rise, leading dependent users to commit “acquisitive” crimes to pay the inflated price. Users might also shift to other, less expensive and possibly more dangerous alternatives. And organized crime would continue to reap enormous profits from the illegal trade. This is not intended to be a criticism of the police (except to the extent that they might advocate continuing such failed measures), since the inherent dynamics of prohibition make their task impossible. If we cannot keep drugs out of Canada’s prisons, why do we pretend that law enforcement can work in the much more open environment outside prisons?

The NDP therefore has serious reservations with recommendations 36-39. They relate to supply reduction, and leave as open ended what resources or additional powers are allocated to interdiction efforts. This section of the Report (Chapter 6) fails to come to terms with some of the serious underlying problems with Canada’s Drug Strategy. To say that “more resources,” particularly more law enforcement resources, will solve our drug problems is unrealistic and short sighted.

The financing of organized crime: The Committee seemed reluctant to analyse the connections between drug prohibition and organized crime. The NDP believes this required a detailed analysis and discussion for better public understanding about what public policy options exist. It is regrettable that the report basically ignores these key questions other than through a simple statement dismissing the organized crime issue. The diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars annually to criminal elements deserves more attention in the report than it has been given.

Governments around the world are looking for means to stem the flow of money to criminal elements, often calling for measures that severely threaten the civil liberties of their citizens, with little consequential benefit. Yet they often overlook how our current drug laws create the environment of such an enormously lucrative illegal market. It is important to not only consider the impact of these policies in Canada, but also globally, for example in countries like Colombia, where the pursuit of prohibitionist policies has caused suffering and violence. Discussing openly and honestly how prohibition creates a flow of money to such groups is absolutely vital.

Drug courts: The NDP has concerns about “drug courts.” Drug courts have become a popular political solution to drug problems, but as yet there is no firm evidence that they are effective, or that the coercive treatment models they involve are successful. Resources could better be used to prevent those dealing with addiction, from ending up in the criminal justice system, in the first place. Therefore, the NDP has strong reservations about recommendations 28 and 29. The NDP also questions the viability of recommendations concerning Correctional Services Canada that promote abstinence as its overriding treatment objective (recommendation 33), and a three year plan to reduce substantially the flow of illicit drugs into prisons (recommendation 30). These recommendations fail to deal with the reality of drugs in our prisons. The NDP would place greater emphasis on adopting harm reducing measures, such as needle exchanges and widespread access to treatment, as a more practical solution. The NDP believes that recommendation 34 (establishment of two drug-free facilities for offenders) is contradictory, counter-productive and discriminatory to the need for adequate treatment services being made available to all offenders, as outlined in recommendation 35.

Marijuana: The Committee has recommended a version of decriminalization (recommendations 40 and 41). The NDP sees decriminalization as only a partial solution. Decriminalization of possession and cultivation of small amounts, as recommended by the Committee, would prevent such users and cultivators from receiving a criminal record. However, it still leaves intact the other harms associated with our current system of criminal prohibition. Among them, simply handing a “joint” to a friend would continue to constitute the offence of “trafficking” under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The intrusive police powers given by the Act would likely remain.

Furthermore, the Committee’s proposal does nothing to address the situation of those saddled with a criminal record for simple possession or for transfer or cultivation of small amounts for non-commercial purposes. If we accept that Canadians should not in future receive a criminal record for certain acts relating to marijuana, those convicted in the past should be pardoned under a general amnesty, and their records erased.

There has already been extensive public debate on the use of marijuana, decriminalization, and legalization. The NDP appreciates the Senate Special Committee Report on Cannabis that raises rational and significant questions. The federal government should consider their analysis and recommendation for a criminal exemption scheme. The NDP urges the federal government to investigate and introduce non-criminal and non-punitive regulatory approaches for adult use, as a preferable direction of public policy, emphasising the need for realistic education and harm prevention programs.

Medical marijuana: The Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs did not deal with marijuana for medical use. However, the NDP wishes to draw attention to the serious problems and flaws in the federal government’s medical marijuana program. The current regulations of the program are very restrictive, overly bureaucratic, and severely limit access by Canadians who have a legitimate need for therapeutic marijuana. The NDP believes that these unnecessary restrictions should be lifted. The recommendations of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs in this regard makes good sense, and should be adopted.